IE 11 Not Supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

Too Strong a Spotlight on STEM May Divide Your School

For more than a decade, the spotlight has shone squarely on STEM subjects, but contemplative policy should be approached with caution so the balanced approach to K-12 curriculum is not tipped so far that it raises silos and isolates STEM and the humanities.

Only the most sequestered of U.S. educators have yet to experience the myriad speeches and discussion over the last decade about increasing emphasis on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Several projections of skills for the future include a mastery of the sciences and mathematics, the methodologies of engineers, and the technology or skills to apply methods and tools to solve problems and accomplish tasks. Even the White House has weighed in, through its Educate to Innovate campaign and the public White House Science Fair. And, of course, the Department of Education, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and a multitude of powerful, well-healed private business groups offer support for STEM and 21st Century economy-supporting initiatives. Bursts of support dedicated to STEM have long tails, such as the 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and the 1984 Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education State Grants Program. But shining this bright spotlight on the technical, the mathematical and the sciences brings out a reasoned concern -- for a drifting from the general liberal arts nature of K-12 education in the United States that's described as well-rounded.

As a STEM educator who's taught in five different decades, it might initially be pleasing to see another round of increased focus and, in some cases, resources. Adding more science and mathematics to high school graduation requirements is an approach based on high expectations. Reviewing the allocation of time in an elementary school's day is another worthy activity. Bringing Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) to nearly the same level with Common Core Standards for arithmetic, mathematics and statistics is good for a wide breadth of science studies. It also goes hand-in-hand with an increased appreciation of engineers' practical use of mathematics and science theories and models, which may ease students' transition from theory to application of information to build skills to solve problems. Add to this wave for STEM another facet from industry -- for coding.

That is a lot of change for the first two decades on the century, and causes concern for the traditional well-rounded K-12 education in the U.S. Speakers talk frequently of an integrated approach to learning while still working to pivot toward the energy and enthusiasm of STEM. Others wish to attach their specialty via hyphenation or adaptation: STEM-C (computer science), STEAM (arts) or AG-STEM (production agriculture). Computer sciences did manage to get its field included in NSF's new definition of STEM. This allows project and research monies to include their specialty. Yet it feels to some that efforts to not isolate STEM are falling short. Silos around subjects remain; in fact, they may be growing, acting as barriers and unnecessary segmentation of student learning.

A June 2015 CareerBuilder article listed growing professions that pay $50 per hour. Among these were aerospace engineer, computer and information research scientist, computer hardware engineer, mathematician, nuclear engineer, physicist and astronomer, and political scientist. The occupations on this select list, while not the highest paying, are notable in that success in any of them does not require a wide range of knowledge in social sciences, humanities or the arts instilled by mastery of language.

Communicating through speaking and writing, and learning through reading and listening, are keys to success in each of the careers on this short list of occupations, on which a sense of influence on community, social responsibility and workings of government are equally weighted. Additionally, the social sciences, languages and fine arts create a firm foundation for avocations and one’s general welfare. To this, a sense of one’s place in the world gained from history, cultural studies and foreign languages are critical to our global economy, and global empathy and understanding.

Time and money are precious commodities in today’s K-12 environments, and the bright spotlight shining on a select few STEM areas within the broad curriculum may be too much weight on the traditional balanced breadth of learning opportunities. Too heavy an emphasis on any one subject threatens to encourage even more silos in student learning or shift the fulcrum's balance point. It's understandable that some subject matter experts may feel frustrated at the attention given to a particular subset. Education leaders and policy makers must have a critical ear toward the rhetoric and make certain that all members of their learning community are given an equal voice in how a school allocates its time and treasures. While all aspects of the STEM curriculum are important, it should not consume all the oxygen. One only has 13 years with these youngsters; let us try our best to maintain a good balance for this century’s global citizens.

Dr. Gordon K. Dahlby is a senior fellow for the Center for Digital Education. He has been an active volunteer for CoSN and ISTE for more than 25 years, including serving on the ISTE Board as well as president of the technology coordinators special interest group. He recently help lead the initial years of the Department of Education supported Connected Educators Month. Gordon retired as director of technology and curriculum after 20 years of service and 36 years in K12 STEM education in central Iowa.